The Case for String Theory - Sixty Symbols
Sixty Symbols2 HN recommenders · 2017–2022
746K views · interview · evergreen · Uploaded 2017-01-30
Sixty Symbols interviews Nottingham cosmologist Tony Padilla, who says string theory deserves to be taken seriously. He explains how strings emerged from the equations rather than being invented.
It is cited in string theory arguments as a counterweight to critics, a working physicist's reason to think there is something to the theory.
1:03:43The Quantum Conspiracy: What Popularizers of QM Don't Want You to Know
Google TechTalks
29:21TIMELAPSE OF THE FUTURE: A Journey to the End of Time (4K)
melodysheep
23:32The Solar Gravitational Lens will Map Exoplanets. Seriously.
Launch Pad Astronomy
9:16Quantum Entanglement & Spooky Action at a Distance
Veritasium
9:01Powers of Ten™ (1977)
Eames Office
1:04:52'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009
Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science
11:33A new way to visualize General Relativity
ScienceClic English
3:31Carl Sagan - Pale Blue Dot
carlsagandotcom
4 comments from Hacker News
I like [VIDEO] (The case for String Theory). It shows that there is a natural progression to String Theory that very few other theories have.
The case for string theory [VIDEO] tl;dr - Nobody theorized strings. They were trying to solve the scattering problem of w-bosons and came up with a solution. The interpretation of the solution is strings.
I've never found a good description or explanation of string theory for the layman. I look, but then I always run into Brian Greene. I did find this video[1], where a professor explains why he at least believes there is something to it. Tl;dr - they weren't looking for strings. They sort of 'popped out' of the equations. [1] = [VIDEO]
I read her book Lost in Math [1] which I have to say was quite a laborious endeavour. It is essentially a long-winded argument that is better summarised in this article and her YouTube channel, though she got to visit many scholars across the globe. Some agreed with her to a certain extent while others simply didn't (Nima Arkani-Hamid, for example, had no interest in her point of view). What I found most lacking was a viable path forward, an alternative to all this nay-saying. She had a section in the end with bullet points on what to do and not do, but it was quite brief and generic. I had a short but interesting exchange on Twitter with Dr. Tony Padilla who has spoken about the case for string theory on Numberphile [2]. He stands at the opposite end of the spectrum of course, and it's worth listening to what he has to say as well. Being a non-expert with just a casual interest in the inner workings of the universe, I am eagerly awaiting whatever the next breakthrough brings for our understanding of the cosmos, but I have to say that string theory and susy have seemed to over-promise and under-deliver with little prospect in sight, and perhaps at the detriment of a more fundamental or foundational approach. Indeed, the question of what is time has always bothered me, so I'm picking up Carlo Rivelli's book on this next [3]. [1] [LINK] [2] [VIDEO] [3] [LINK]